(a+ 1/N) (1 1/99Na+1) +Z /1?9(Na+1) = a false alarm
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.There was a time when a burglar alarm went off that a bobby would have arrived to see what was up. Now it is the subject of a mathematically based police investigation of Pythagorean proportions.
Angered by waste caused by 1 million false alarm calls a year, the police have turned to a statistician to identify inefficient installers. The piece of algebra he devised (shown above) is said to be infallible. By entering the number of false alarms into the equation, police believe they can nab rogue installers.
But the proposal has set off a clangour of disapproval in the alarm industry, which said firms could be unfairly put out of business. Almost all false alarms which trigger an automatic police response are caused by the errors of owners, who can already be blacklisted under the police's "four strikes and you're out" false-alarm rule.
Yet if the new formula identifies an installer as having an unusually high number of false signals, the police say they will refuse to work with the firm.
Nigel Craig, of Eurotech Security Systems, in north London, complained to the Metropolitan Police after receiving an explanation of their proposed use of the formula. "I have not the foggiest as to what you are talking about," he wrote. "I can only assume some people have nothing better to do or this is part of a conspiracy to improve the income of my psychiatrist."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments